The point is that atheism isn't a proper hypothesis because it's a negative general claim, which makes it virtually untestable. Atheism is the negation of theism, but historically it's theists who treated "atheism" as itself an ideology. Atheists often fall into that trap, but this way of setting up the positions is loaded. No one should identify mainly as an atheist.

The issue isn't atheism; rather, the lay of the land is that you have theism on the one side and secular modernity on the other, where the latter includes naturalism, humanism, rapid scientific progress and economic growth, consumerism, the death of God in the sense of the meaning crisis (rampant alienation, anxiety, depression), and so on. The clash is between anachronistic religions and modernity (science, capitalism, democracy, liberal humanism, material progress).

What should be tested and argued for is the latter, and indeed there's currently a global backlash against modernity, represented by the rise of populist dictators. So modernity is presently being tested.

But if by "hypothesis," you mean a claim that's either true or false, then sure, atheism is a subject that can be discussed, just as you can discuss the denial of unicorns, leprechauns, and so forth. In arguing against theism, I implicitly argue for atheism. It's just that atheism is only a negative claim, and we should focus on arguing for what we positively believe and practice.